It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberals on the wrong side of history

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
A while back I remember a thread asking why conservatives are always "on the wrong side of history" on social issues. It's a relatively common talking point I've heard from a number of liberal friends. There are some instances where I would agree conservatives have been, for example I personally couldn't care less who marries who. And I'm by no means trying to allege all liberals have been on the wrong side of this issue. Disclaimer over.

This tidal wave of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations has, in my mind, put a major spotlight on the true colors of some powerful liberals. Let's not forget, in the 90s, many were completely dismissive of all the allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Bill Clinton. The accusers were ridiculed, mocked, smeared. It was no big deal for this powerful man to use his position to coerce a sexual relationship from an intern. This was the President. We have laws against teachers having relationships with students, even if the student is 18, because they are in a position of power over them. I would argue the Presidency is a much more powerful position than a teacher.

Of course the counter-argument is "well it's not just liberals in positions of power that do this". Granted. I completely acknowledge this. This problem has no partisan blinders. What I'm talking about is the reaction to the problem. Many prominent conservatives were screaming from the rooftops about Clinton, and prominent liberals had their fingers in their ears because Clinton had the same politics as them.

Here we are 20 years later, and we almost had a repeat. Nancy Pelosi was visibly reluctant to condemn Conyers. It's clear to me she was forced to call for his resignation by the outcry of lower-ranking women in the party and the realization that there was enough public ire about this issue that she had no choice. Kathleen Rice walked out of a meeting because she said party leadership wasn't taking the issue seriously enough. (Interestingly, I couldn't find a link to this on CNN, which I try to use so liberals can't accuse me of using fake news sources, so that's from Business Insider).


Rep. Kathleen Rice, the New York Democrat, walked out of the House Democratic Caucus meeting on Wednesday morning before it concluded, citing frustration with her colleagues' inability to take a harder stance on sexual-harassment allegations against Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat.



According to The Washington Post's Dave Weigel, Rice abruptly left the meeting, telling reporters outside, "I don't have time for meetings that aren't real."


If you read between the lines, it sounds like the meeting was probably more about "how do we best run damage control" rather than "how do we fix this problem". They still haven't woken up to the fact that they have been enablers of this kind of behavior ever since they looked the other way for Clinton. This NY Times piece where this woman clearly recognizes that she was wrong for ignoring Juanita Broaddrick all these years was a stunning admission to me. She acknowledges they excused a sexual predator for decades, and that it was wrong.

Like any issue, it's not black and white. There are plenty of conservatives that excuse this kind of behavior too. We can point at what's going on with Roy Moore right now. And of course there's Trump. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the Republican Party of Alabama or Donald Trump represent mainstream conservatism. My point here is that over the years, by and large, mainstream liberals were on the wrong side of this, and they're starting to wake up to that. Mainstream conservatives, by and large, have usually been critical of this type of behavior. There are examples contrary to both those assertions, for sure. It's a generalized observation. Maybe if liberals had joined conservatives with Clinton, we would have had this watershed moment 20 years ago, and maybe set in motion the path to rectifying this or at least cutting down on it, saving countless victims.



+8 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. If you think otherwise you are delusional.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I suggest you narrow it down to wealthy regressive liberals. The working class liberals have no love for them and hated them.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Liberals on the wrong side of history

They've never been on the right side of history.

EVER.


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The same can be said about Trump.

A candidate with multiple allegations. And we voted him in office.

Also Roy Moore. Moore allegations as well.

And they want to vote Moore into office. With some people even saying better a pedophile than a democrat in office.

It goes both ways.


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history

They've never been on the right side of history.

EVER.


Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
A while back I remember a thread asking why conservatives are always "on the wrong side of history" on social issues. It's a relatively common talking point I've heard from a number of liberal friends. There are some instances where I would agree conservatives have been, for example I personally couldn't care less who marries who. And I'm by no means trying to allege all liberals have been on the wrong side of this issue. Disclaimer over.

This tidal wave of sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations has, in my mind, put a major spotlight on the true colors of some powerful liberals. Let's not forget, in the 90s, many were completely dismissive of all the allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Bill Clinton. The accusers were ridiculed, mocked, smeared. It was no big deal for this powerful man to use his position to coerce a sexual relationship from an intern. This was the President. We have laws against teachers having relationships with students, even if the student is 18, because they are in a position of power over them. I would argue the Presidency is a much more powerful position than a teacher.

Of course the counter-argument is "well it's not just liberals in positions of power that do this". Granted. I completely acknowledge this. This problem has no partisan blinders. What I'm talking about is the reaction to the problem. Many prominent conservatives were screaming from the rooftops about Clinton, and prominent liberals had their fingers in their ears because Clinton had the same politics as them.

Here we are 20 years later, and we almost had a repeat. Nancy Pelosi was visibly reluctant to condemn Conyers. It's clear to me she was forced to call for his resignation by the outcry of lower-ranking women in the party and the realization that there was enough public ire about this issue that she had no choice. Kathleen Rice walked out of a meeting because she said party leadership wasn't taking the issue seriously enough. (Interestingly, I couldn't find a link to this on CNN, which I try to use so liberals can't accuse me of using fake news sources, so that's from Business Insider).


Rep. Kathleen Rice, the New York Democrat, walked out of the House Democratic Caucus meeting on Wednesday morning before it concluded, citing frustration with her colleagues' inability to take a harder stance on sexual-harassment allegations against Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat.



According to The Washington Post's Dave Weigel, Rice abruptly left the meeting, telling reporters outside, "I don't have time for meetings that aren't real."


If you read between the lines, it sounds like the meeting was probably more about "how do we best run damage control" rather than "how do we fix this problem". They still haven't woken up to the fact that they have been enablers of this kind of behavior ever since they looked the other way for Clinton. This NY Times piece where this woman clearly recognizes that she was wrong for ignoring Juanita Broaddrick all these years was a stunning admission to me. She acknowledges they excused a sexual predator for decades, and that it was wrong.

Like any issue, it's not black and white. There are plenty of conservatives that excuse this kind of behavior too. We can point at what's going on with Roy Moore right now. And of course there's Trump. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the Republican Party of Alabama or Donald Trump represent mainstream conservatism. My point here is that over the years, by and large, mainstream liberals were on the wrong side of this, and they're starting to wake up to that. Mainstream conservatives, by and large, have usually been critical of this type of behavior. There are examples contrary to both those assertions, for sure. It's a generalized observation. Maybe if liberals had joined conservatives with Clinton, we would have had this watershed moment 20 years ago, and maybe set in motion the path to rectifying this or at least cutting down on it, saving countless victims.


I think what makes all the accusations so egregious is that it exposes the hypocrisy of the left for all to see. For pretty much the past two decades they have been able to brand conservatives with the "war on women" meme with little to no basis and then now the left is being exposed for actually doing what they were claiming conservatives were doing.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

If it were not for gerrymandering he would not have won. He did not win the popular vote. Besides, who counts the votes in the state houses decides the election. The whole voting process is corrupt and rigged because there are never any scandals in the news.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
i think you need to draw a distinction between elected democrats and the liberals down here on the ground. i think most of us real-life liberals are happy to throw them all on the fire, left and right, when this kind of news comes out. i've seen far more of us saying that they need to apologize and step down than i see of real-life conservatives saying the same about trump or moore.

just my two cents.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: face23785

Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. If you think otherwise you are delusional.


Both sides are getting played by a handful of wealthy globalists.

People are people and they have weaknesses.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Keep on paying into this deliberate divisiveness and you will get what you deserve. Keep getting lost in your little left/right paradigm that has so obviously been manufactured to delude you and keep you forgetting that divided we fall. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history

They've never been on the right side of history.

EVER.


Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?


I wanted to work well before the age 16.

Nixon created the EPA.

Those big pharmaceuticals that trangenders use isn't very safe, nor is most drugs, OR food.

See the herbal medicine and organic movements.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I think that conservatism is very often on the wrong side of history but it's really not about partisanship but rather the inherent nature of conservatism (literally support of the preservation of the status quo or a return to an early state).

That's not to say that progressives (a more reasonable candidate for the "opposite" of conservative though even then, it's not perfect) don't get it wrong. Eugenics was legitimately a popular idea among progressives prior to WWII. Not because they wanted a holocaust but because many prominent scientists saw selective breeding as a way of improving the human condition — but as we all know the Nazis firmly closed the book on that bad idea.

It's also more than reasonable to say that communism is a progressive ideology and again, complete nightmare in reality that led to millions of dead people.

However, when it comes to social issues ranging from slavery, labor law, woman's suffrage, free speech, the end of segregation, etc — and most recently same sex marriage — the progressives were on the right side of history. Notice something? The progressives were on the right side of history when they were also being the most liberal (as in legitimately liberal).

When progressives are not also liberal, that's when they end up on the wrong side of history.
edit on 2017-12-1 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history

They've never been on the right side of history.

EVER.


Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?

That and founding the country itself.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history

They've never been on the right side of history.

EVER.


Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?

That and founding the country itself.


Really the PILGRIMS were liberals ?

Last time I checked they can't even admit GOD even exists, and are always running around screaming separation of church and state while dictating to the church.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: neo96
Liberals on the wrong side of history

They've never been on the right side of history.

EVER.


Child labor laws? Environmental Protection? Food and drug safety?

That and founding the country itself.


Really the PILGRIMS were liberals ?

I can't recall any Pilgrims signing the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.


Last time I checked they can't even admit GOD even exists, and are always running around screaming separation of church and state while dictating to the church.

Pilgrims can't admit that god exists? Pilgrims are one of the most religious demographics that settled on the continent.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The PILGRIMS founded the United States of America? I thought it was bad when people were getting warped senses of history from statues. What's this nonsense derived from? Thanksgiving decorations?



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't recall anything remotely resembling what liberal means in their entire platform throughout history ?

It's nothing but an authoritarian ideology.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't recall anything remotely resembling what liberal means in their entire platform throughout history ?

It's nothing but an authoritarian ideology.


Now if only laissez faire capitalism can do something about poverty and the never ending boom or bust cycle.



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So the Pilgrims played no part of the beginning of this country ?

NONE ?

Rather odd considering the first amendment and all about religious freedom.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join